Complaints about withdrawal and retirement benefits were the most frequent problems brought before the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
In his latest report, John Murphy, the Adjudicator, says of the 580 complaints resolved to the year ending March 2000, 234 were about withdrawal benefits (pay-outs upon leaving a fund for a reason other than retirement) and 96 were about retirement benefits.
The other complaints concerned transfer values (58), death benefits (57), disability or ill health benefits (49), and surplus-related issues (37).
Most complaints concerned more than one issue and touched on a different range of subjects so these figures are merely illustrative. All the complaints were settled through a determination by the Adjudicator, a settlement or advice.
Disputes about interpretation, benefit calculations, fiduciary duties and the discretionary powers of boards of managements featured high on the list of complaints.
About 65 percent of the 580 cases reviewed had a financial consequence of more than R150 000 and 35 percent less than R150 000. The consequence of the remaining five percent was unknown.
Murphy says complaints about the restructuring of pension funds and the distribution of surpluses continue to consume a fair amount of his time.
The Adjudicator says he tends to approach these matters cautiously, pending guidance from higher courts and Parliament.
In many cases his scope for intervention is constrained, usually because the relief sought is beyond the limits of adjudication for three reasons:
* Courts and judicial bodies hesitate to overturn economic distributional decisions on the grounds of equity;
* The courts, and especially Murphy's office, lack the resources to undertake the kind of investigation needed to assess the broader impact of the restructuring exercises; and
* Many of the legitimate concerns of members about restructuring arrangements of pension funds are difficult to remedy because of the practical consequences of remedying the problem years after the event. Also, the Pension Funds Act does not clearly empower the Adjudicator to rule on issues of equity specifically where it comes to transfer values. This reflects an evident weakness in the regulatory process created by the legislation.